Background Briefing by Telephone by a Senior Administration Official on APEC Meetings

7:05 P.M. (Local)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This is on background, as a senior
administration official. I thought I'd give you a brief overview of
what we accomplished. We had a very successful summit. President Bush
came to Bangkok to urge decisive action to promote prosperity and
security. There were two major issues on the agenda, trade and
counterterrorism. We obtained excellent results on both.

On trade, leaders agreed, with U.S. encouragement, to "reenergize"
-- which is the word used in the declaration -- the Doha global trade
negotiations by working off of the negotiating text developed at the
recent WTO meeting in Cancun. This gets a little technical, but you'll
recall that that meeting broke down without members endorsing the text
that had been developed by the chairman of the meeting. So it's
significant that the 21 APEC economies, some of who were members of the
so-called Group of 21, have agreed to work from that text and build on
it.

There was also discussion of increased cooperation among APEC
members on trade issues. This is as positive and constructive a result
as we could have had. We hope all parties are seriously ready to move
forward with the negotiations on substance.

At the same time, of course, the United States is moving forward
with regional and bilateral free trade agreements. And President Bush,
as you know, announced our intent to launch free trade negotiations
with Thailand.

On terrorism, leaders endorsed a remarkably strong set of security
commitments that will complement APEC's economic goals. The
declaration that was issued recognizes that terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are "direct and profound"
challenges to APEC's vision of free and open trade. And they agreed to
dedicated APEC and their efforts not only to advancing prosperity, but
to the complementary mission of ensuring the security of their people.

And in so doing, they committed to take all essential action to
dismantle fully and without delay transnational terrorist groups, to
eliminate the severe and growing danger posed by proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and to confront other direct threats to
the security of the region. And they pledged to discuss at each
leaders' meeting their progress toward these commitments and to take
specific actions in pursuit of them.

This creates -- we hope this will create a process, a positive
dynamic. And, in fact, reflecting that, President Lagos of Chile, who
will host next year's APEC meeting, announced that that meeting will
focus, among other things, on terrorism and proliferation, as well as
trade.

In addition to addressing those two major issues, trade and
counterterrorism, leaders endorsed a number of initiatives and
actions. Those included action to strengthen the control of
shoulder-launched missiles, so-called MANPADS, which threaten civil
aviation. They agreed to increase efforts to build to capacity to
combat terror within the region, and to establish a facility of the
Asian Development Bank to help fund capacity-building efforts -- things
like enhancing port security and airport security and choking off
terrorist financing.

They also endorsed an initiative on health security, coming off of
their experience with SARS, designed to improve disease monitoring,
surveillance and response, both respect to emerging diseases, natural
and manmade. And they endorsed an energy initiative, as well as tough
action on corruption.

So, all in all, we thought it was a very constructive meeting, and
a very successful one. I'm happy to take any questions.

Q Can you clarify a statement made this morning that said there
would be no we didn't know about any statement on Korea? And then
it's my understanding that some sort of verbal statement was made at
the session. Was there a statement on Korea? Did we just not know it
was coming? And how does that jibe with what we were told this
morning?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What we discussed this morning is
that -- we had not been pushing for a statement. As you know, we had a
very strong statement from this organization last year on this issue,
really the first time APEC addressed it. And so we had a formal
statement last year. In many, many ways, we have moved beyond
statements. We have the six-party talks underway and that's where
we're focusing our efforts.

What I believe occurred, and I think I alluded to this earlier
today, was that at the lunch, which was designed to be a free-form
discussion and any one of a number of issues could have arisen, and
apparently one of the issues that did arise was the Korean situation.
And Prime Minister Thaksin, as Chairman of the meeting, issued, in
addition to the formal negotiated declaration, which covered the
various issues that I just discussed, issued a Chairman's Summary, in
which he simply summarized the gist of the discussions that occurred
over the past couple of days. And in so doing, he noted a discussion
over lunch on the situation on the Korean Peninsula. And he summarized
that.

We obviously were supportive of what he said. But we were not
pushing for a formal statement. And as I say, we have the six-party
talks ongoing and underway and that's where we're focusing our
efforts.

Q If possible, could you tell us what kind of remarks the
President made on terrorism?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What kind of remarks President
Bush made on terrorism, is that the question?

Q Yes, please.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: President Bush noted that he
thought it was wise for APEC to discuss not only economic issues, but
terrorism, as well, since the goal of terrorism in so many ways is to
shut down our economies. He expressed a lot of appreciation for the
good work that so many of the leaders around that table have been doing
to fight terror. Of course, it's a point that he made on other stops
on this Asia trip, as well, noting the action that many of the leaders
have taken, including Prime Minister Thaksin's action to take the
terrorist Hambali.

He thought that it was very important for this meeting to send a
strong message and make a strong statement that we won't yield to
terrorism and we won't be intimidated. And the statement -- the
declaration that was produced I think clearly does that. And he
emphasized that this is a war between all of those who want free and
open societies and some who are willing to take innocent lives and kill
innocent people; not a war against any religion, but a war against
killers.

Q Can you just tell us a little about what the White House's
view was on Hu Jintao's performance was at APEC? And more broadly, how
does the administration see a rising China and the influence of a
rising China, in terms of U.S. diplomacy in the region? Is the balance
of influence changing, and is that a good or a bad thing for the U.S.?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we had a very good meeting
with President Hu, and it covered a wide array of topics. We are
cooperating on the war on terror. President Hu, himself, in the
leader's meeting, called on all APEC economies to rally to support
peace and stability in the region and promote prosperity, and noted
that he was pleased that so many common points of agreement have been
found.

So it was a good -- he spoke out on that issue; he spoke out on a
number of other issues. And as I said, the bilateral meeting we had
was a productive one, as well. And I think you've already been
backgrounded on the substance of that.

Q Can I ask you two questions about the terrorism agenda? One
question is, in the meetings, did any of the leaders object to the
concept of enshrining a security counterterrorism initiative within
APEC? And the second part of the question was to ask you whether any
of these 21 countries are now going to do anything more on
counterterrorism after this two days at APEC than they would have
otherwise?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: First, no, no one objected. In
fact, President Megawati noted you cannot promote trade and investment
if there is no security. Gloria Arroyo called for an increased
emphasis on counterterrorism capacity-building, and welcomed U.S.
action to help countries build that capacity.

No one objected at all. I think that there was, at the leader
level, a very deep appreciation and recognition that, in fact, as that
the declaration, itself, says, terrorism, itself, is a threat to the
achievement of the economic goals of the APEC countries, namely free
trade and investment in the ASIA Pacific region. There was certainly
no objection to this expressed at the leader level.

In terms of whether countries are going to do more -- I mean, I
think all you've got to do is look at the record so far. You know,
it's interesting that last year we launched several initiatives
designed to address the ways in which the terrorist threat is impacting
trade and commerce, the principal ones being the so-called STAR
initiative, or Secure Trade in the APEC Region, which was very similar
to the Transport Security Initiative which was launched in the G8.
It's designed to address port and airport security, container security,
the movement of ships, planes and people.

And since -- and it laid out a bunch of dates and benchmarks for
action to take place. And it's interesting that the record so far is
extraordinarily positive in terms of what the APEC economies have done,
pursuant to that initiative. All APEC economies with air service to
the United States have installed reinforced flight deck doors. All
APEC economies will implement 100 percent baggage screening by the end
of 2004, one year ahead of the international goal. Eight APEC
economies have joined the U.S. Container Security Initiative.

So if the past is any predictor of the future, I think we can
expect the agreements reached and the commitments endorsed in the two
days of meetings that we've had to, yes, meet increased action on the
part of these countries.

And I might add, on that score, APEC is unique in some ways in
terms of many of these summit processes since it has such extensive
private-sector involvement. As you know, the President and the other
leaders met with APEC Business Advisory Committee. And these are
business leaders operating in the region from all of the APEC
countries, and they recognize the need to address squarely the threat
that terrorism presents to the growth of trade and commerce in the
region, and have encouraged leaders to address these issues.

Q I'm having a little bit of trouble hearing you clearly in the
back of the room, so if I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. But I thought
you just said that there were no real objections to expanding the
agenda to include security. And it was my understanding that both Fox
of Mexico and Mahatir of Malaysia did object to altering the agenda to
anything beyond economic or trade issues.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: If they did, they did not object
to it in the meeting that I listened in on. There are differing views,
I think, of the relative emphasis that ought to be made, but as you can
tell by some of the statements that I've shared with you that I heard
leaders express, that as a general matter, they all recognized that
this was not only legitimate and important for APEC to address both
economic issues and security issues, but essential, that they go hand
in hand. I think it's simply a recognition of the reality.

You know, ever since Shanghai, the summit in Shanghai, which
occurred, what, roughly six weeks after September 11th, and the APEC
countries came together and issued a very powerful communique, and then
continuing at Los Cabos with the Transport Security Initiative, and now
continuing with the Bangkok summit with a very powerful statement about
the commitment to fight terror, as well as new initiatives to address
things like the -- MANPADS, and to build the capacity within the region
to combat terror, I think you're seeing a process whereby leaders are
all converging on the view that both of these things, security and
prosperity, have to go hand in hand. They do go hand in hand. And as
the APEC agenda advances, I think you're going to see the APEC
economies continue to advance both their prosperity goals and their
security goals.

Q One question -- one other thing. Did they discuss Iraq? And
coming out of the APEC meeting, what does the President hope Asia
Pacific countries are going to be contributing when it comes to
Madrid?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's hard to hear, but I think the
answer is they discussed Iran.

Q No, Iraq.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Iraq?

Q Yes. We'd also like Iran, if you'd like to.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Not in the -- Iraq did not arise
in the meeting that I was able to observe. But keep in mind -- and I'm
sorry I didn't point this out at the beginning -- the leaders' luncheon
was leaders only. There was no ability to observe or listen in on the
discussion, so I cannot tell you what was or was not discussed there,
or what views were or were not expressed. I have not gotten a readout
of that meeting, and I was unable to listen in on it.

Q Taking your point that on North Korea you're beyond
statements, was there no value to having APEC leaders come behind
anything the President has said about North Korea? And did you raise
the possibility of having some statement about it, or in fact did the
United States say that they didn't want any statement about North
Korea?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm having a hard time hearing.
Can you say that again?

Q Why didn't you want any statement about North Korea -- or did
you?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think I've answered that. I
said we were not pushing for a statement. We felt that -- as I said,
we, in many ways, have moved beyond that. We have the six-party talks
ongoing, which we didn't have when we met last year, and that that's
where we're focusing the bulk of our efforts.